Advertisements

On Wednesday, February 15, 2012 4:50:04 AM UTC-8, Richard Maher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is anyone else gutted that the Chrome browser on Android will not support
> JAVA, Flash or any other pluggin?
>
> I thought Google and Android were big on JAVA?

Google is big on Java (but not "JAVA"), and Android code is often in Java (but
not "JAVA"). That doesn't mean the browser should support applets.

And support for Flash is up to neither Google nor Java.

Why in the world should anyone be "gutted" (whatever the heck that means) about
this? Write to Adobe for your Flash concern and the browser maker (who isn't
Google, BTW), with your complaint. Whining here won't help.

Do try to complain to the right people. Google and Oracle won't be the right
people.

Advertisements

On 2/15/2012 10:57 AM, Lew wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2012 4:50:04 AM UTC-8, Richard Maher wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is anyone else gutted that the Chrome browser on Android will not support
>> JAVA, Flash or any other pluggin?
>>
>> I thought Google and Android were big on JAVA?
>
> Google is big on Java (but not "JAVA"), and Android code is often in Java (but
> not "JAVA"). That doesn't mean the browser should support applets.
>

and maybe it wouldn't really help matters much that Android uses a
specialized VM (rather than a more typical JVM).

the language in use doesn't matter much for applets, if the underlying
VM isn't using Java ByteCode. one would need a VM which also has support
for both JBC and a class-loader, or alternatively such a VM would need
to be available (on the system and is usable by the browser).

> And support for Flash is up to neither Google nor Java.
>

well, Google may be involved, but so is Adobe.

(checking, apparently, Flash is already available for Android).

a bigger problem though with Flash may be the reasonably low stats of
typical Android devices (vs say, a desktop PC, or a laptop). it is
possible that, even if Flash does work, it wouldn't necessarily be a
pretty experience (poor performance, steep memory use, ...).

> Why in the world should anyone be "gutted" (whatever the heck that means) about
> this? Write to Adobe for your Flash concern and the browser maker (who isn't
> Google, BTW), with your complaint. Whining here won't help.
>

maybe he means the sensation of being physically disemboweled?... (or,
conversely, the sensation of being kicked or kneed in the same general
area, which is considerably less lethal, but also considerably
unpleasant?...).

the Browser in question is Chrome, which I am pretty sure is a Google
product (Wikipedia seems to agree here).

now, if it were Opera or Firefox or something, then it would make sense
to contact them (as they are not Google).

however, even then, it would also be up to Adobe (and others, such as
the device manufacturers, ...) as to whether or not they wanted to make
it available (actually, given how it works, the mobile service carriers
may also be involved, as apparently in Android land it is the
vendor+carrier which has most of the say regarding what system-level
software is available).

ultimately, it may be moot if the devices are technically underpowered
for this (Flash doesn't perform well on an ASUS EEE either, which has
much higher stats than most Android devices).

what makes Android smooth and responsive is not really about having high
stats, but rather about making the system fairly minimalist and
streamlined. the downside though is that technologies tuned for more
powerful systems, are not likely to work very well.

the issue is not that typical Flash applications are particularly
high-end or advanced, but rather that many Flash apps aren't really
written for efficiency.

conversely: doing impressive-looking things on a PC (delivering a
compelling user experience, especially for real-time interactive
software like 3D games or similar) does require some amount of concern
for things like optimization and similar (and it would be very difficult
to deliver a similar level of quality-of-experience on something like a
mobile device).

but, how much is concern is relevant and where itself may depend highly
on the particular application and use-case (like, how and where to
invest optimizations, and which sorts of properties to optimize for, ...).

> Do try to complain to the right people. Google and Oracle won't be the right
> people.
>
> Neither are we.
>

On 2/15/2012 7:50 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
> Is anyone else gutted that the Chrome browser on Android will not support
> JAVA, Flash or any other pluggin?
>
> I thought Google and Android were big on JAVA?

On 2/15/2012 5:21 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 2/15/2012 7:50 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
>> Is anyone else gutted that the Chrome browser on Android will not support
>> JAVA, Flash or any other pluggin?
>>
>> I thought Google and Android were big on JAVA?
>
> All the high level stuff in Android is done in Java.
>

(yes, albeit via a different VM, namely, Dalvik).

> But Android does not support applets.
>
> Neither does any of other new mobile platforms (iOS, WP etc.).
>

yep.
theoretically, one "could" support applets, by supplying a JVM capable
of applets, and having the browser be able to use it. worse yet, for
this type of software, AFAIK, given how the system works, and absent
vendor and carrier support, one could essentially need to "root" their
device to install it (if it were to exist as a piece of system software,
rather than an APK or similar). granted, it is possible I guess that a
JVM could be supplied as an APK (AFAICT it is possible for APKs to
behave as libraries, and be linked to by other APKs).

whether all this would be "worthwhile" is a different issue.

> Flash should be available on Android but not on iOS.
>

yep.

for many Flash apps though, the performance and user experience would be
debatable. things like YouTube and similar should probably work ok (I
have an Android tablet which can access YouTube ok, albeit with the
"mobile" layout funkiness). likewise, YouTube and similar don't do much
processor intensive in Flash, since the main expensive parts (A/V codecs
and playback stuff) are handled by native code.

but, I distrust Flash some, as it is one of those things capable of
causing lag even to a browser on a typical PC (and one ends up
installing "Adblock Plus" and similar, not so much out of a particular
dislike of advertising, but rather to avoid the *severe lag* often
caused by all the Flash-based banner adds...).

not that some of those "laggy as hell" Flash-based games give much hope
either. some of them are barely playable as-is on a desktop PC, more so
that my PC has a CPU 3x-4x faster with 4x as many cores, and 16x or 32x
more RAM than a typical Android device (I have 16GB of RAM, vs 512MB or
1GB which is AFAIK common on many newer mobile devices).

one can avoid being deceived: a slick and responsive UI does not mean
there is a lot of raw power behind it.

so, I guess a question is why one wants Flash:
for things like YouTube;
or, for something like Newgrounds.

> For mobile web you should use HTML5 and JavaScript.
>

probably a fair statement.

granted, I haven't done much related to web-apps personally.

mild tangent follows (ignore if not interested or if it seems irrelevant):

ironically though, both JavaScript and ActionScript (Flash) are
significant influences on my own scripting language (at its core, it is
basically the same language, and also more-or-less implements ECMA-262).
however, there are significant differences WRT library features and the
semantics for extended features.

the major difference is what it runs on: my 3D engine is not a
web-browser, even if it has some similar features, makes some use of
XML, has an HTTP client (and server), ... (trivia: I had before
considered some possibly "interesting" uses for HTTP in relation to
online gaming).

I before considered the possibility of an Android port, but there were
some non-trivial issues: getting it down to a more "sane" memory
footprint, dealing with non-trivial UI issues (my stuff is very much
designed for a mouse+keyboard interface, and one essentially has to
"re-think" many aspects of UI design to make it usable on a
touch-screen), ...

(nevermind that it looks like building both for the PC and Android with
the same app and the same codebase also looks non-trivial, and one is
almost better off "starting clean" if trying to target an app to Android).

one may take it for granted when developing PC software that one has
around 3GB freely usable for a single 32-bit process (actually, the
"unusable" 1GB has use as well). (by "freely usable", I mean, on modern
HW one can use all of it without necessarily causing lag or HDD
thrashing). yes, 64-bit is "better" (no 3GB limit), just for now I am
still building mostly for 32-bits until 32-bit Windows is more solidly
"dead and gone".

On 2012-02-15 23:50:04 +1100, Richard Maher said:
> Hi,
>
> Is anyone else gutted that the Chrome browser on Android will not
> support JAVA, Flash or any other pluggin?
>
> I thought Google and Android were big on JAVA?
>
> Cheers Richard Maher

Android uses the Dalvik VM, ostensibly to take advantage of the CPU
architectures of the devices commonly used in mobile devices. For
Google it also provides a convient firewall to keep out unwanted code
from their eco system.

Flash is no longer necessary since HTML5. Flash is unwanted anyway as
it offers some pernicious features for marketers (and others) to track
users using Flash cookies. I say good riddence to Flash.

The same goes for Java Applets. It has been a long time since applets
have been useful. I recommend that people disable Java in their
browsers. It is just a security risk and a way to waste memory. HTML
canvas and websockets and JS can do anything that you could do in Java
in a browser. Applets are a dying technology and the sooner they kick
the bucket the better for everyone.

As for Android. It is in my opinion a fiendishly clever honeypot aiding
Google in collecting the identities of as many people in the world as
they can.

On 2/15/2012 9:21 PM, Rajiv Gupta wrote:
> On 2012-02-15 23:50:04 +1100, Richard Maher said:
>> Is anyone else gutted that the Chrome browser on Android will not
>> support JAVA, Flash or any other pluggin?
>>
>> I thought Google and Android were big on JAVA?
>
> Android uses the Dalvik VM, ostensibly to take advantage of the CPU
> architectures of the devices commonly used in mobile devices. For Google
> it also provides a convient firewall to keep out unwanted code from
> their eco system.

Given that they provide free tools to generate code for Dalvik, then
they do not really keep anyone out.
> Flash is no longer necessary since HTML5.

If you can live with 30% of web users not seeing your stuff.
> The same goes for Java Applets. It has been a long time since applets
> have been useful. I recommend that people disable Java in their
> browsers. It is just a security risk and a way to waste memory.

????

On a page that does not use applets, then Java will not be running and
therefor not e using memory.

On a page that does use applets, then Java will consume memory but also
be needed.

So I do not understand that advice.
> HTML
> canvas and websockets and JS can do anything that you could do in Java
> in a browser.

For web then Java applets is still more widely supported than HTML5.
> As for Android. It is in my opinion a fiendishly clever honeypot aiding
> Google in collecting the identities of as many people in the world as
> they can.

On 2012-02-17 13:23:25 +1100, Arne Vajhøj said:
> On 2/15/2012 9:21 PM, Rajiv Gupta wrote:
>> On 2012-02-15 23:50:04 +1100, Richard Maher said:
>>> Is anyone else gutted that the Chrome browser on Android will not
>>> support JAVA, Flash or any other pluggin?
>>>
>>> I thought Google and Android were big on JAVA?
>>
>> Android uses the Dalvik VM, ostensibly to take advantage of the CPU
>> architectures of the devices commonly used in mobile devices. For Google
>> it also provides a convient firewall to keep out unwanted code from
>> their eco system.
>
> Given that they provide free tools to generate code for Dalvik, then
> they do not really keep anyone out.

It is still a barrier.
>
>> Flash is no longer necessary since HTML5.
>
> If you can live with 30% of web users not seeing your stuff.

The situation is rapidly changing. Adobe have acknowledged it
themselves as they have stopped developing Flash for mobile devices.
>
>> The same goes for Java Applets. It has been a long time since applets
>> have been useful. I recommend that people disable Java in their
>> browsers. It is just a security risk and a way to waste memory.
>
> ????
>
> On a page that does not use applets, then Java will not be running and
> therefor not e using memory.
>
> On a page that does use applets, then Java will consume memory but also
> be needed.
>
> So I do not understand that advice.

Are you retarded or just a pedant? By disabling Java in the browser,
you will prevent the browser from running applets.
>
>> HTML
>> canvas and websockets and JS can do anything that you could do in Java
>> in a browser.
>
> For web then Java applets is still more widely supported than HTML5.

For any new developments you would be an imbecile to choose deploying
an applet. The browser that has the most rapidly increasing market
share (Chrome) does not even bother to support it.

>
>> As for Android. It is in my opinion a fiendishly clever honeypot aiding
>> Google in collecting the identities of as many people in the world as
>> they can.
>
> That problem is solvable:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat
>
> Arne

Google's main business is to collect information about people in order
to profit from it by advertising or selling the information in some
form. This is not a paranoid delusional statement. In some
jurisdictions their activities border on criminal. For example, forging
emails from registered users which state that user "XXX" has invited
you to join Google+. In fact an official complaint has been made to a
member of parlaiment in my jurisdiction asking for the federal police
to investigate these mass forging of emails because forging of emails
is an offence.

Android phones (unless rooted or registered with Google) continually
display a full screen dialog which nags the user to create an account.
This page interferes with the operation of the phone since it will
appear at any time. If the hapless user eventually succumbs and creates
an account Google will upload the user's contacts database to their
system. You would be naive if you believed Google would not be
building a graph from those contacts.

In <jhhp7k$sum$> Rajiv Gupta wrote:
> Android uses the Dalvik VM, ostensibly to take advantage of the CPU
> architectures of the devices commonly used in mobile devices. For
> Google it also provides a convient firewall to keep out unwanted code
> from their eco system.

Dalvik a firewall? Do you mean that was a oringinal goal or more like a
selling point after the fact?

My interpretation is that apart from performance, the dalvik vm was a
convenient way to work around some software patents on the JVM that Google
or android.com wouldn't be bothered to, didn't, or couldn't manage to
negotiate licensing for from Sun.

Besides, today you can deploy C, C++, python, ruby, Perl, JRuby, Lua,
BeanShell, JavaScript, Tcl, shell, scala, and Java source code in one way or
another on Android devices. So if dalvik was intended to be a firewall, I
wonder in what sense? The only thing I haven't heard of yet is true Java
byte code execution on a true JVM on Android. In theory it could be done
using the OpenJDK ARM port i guess.

Not so sure why a "true" JVM on the Android would be a priority though? I
find that with a rather small effort my source code can easily pass between
my Android app projects and my Java EE projects. My experience is that
Android in some sense is surprisingly true to the original WORA promise of
Java.
> As for Android. It is in my opinion a fiendishly clever honeypot aiding
> Google in collecting the identities of as many people in the world as
> they can.

Cyanogenmod is your friend. Available for many Android devices and wont tell
Google about your existence if you don't ask it to.

Anyway, comparing with the popular alternatives Android is for sure the
lesser of evils on the mobile device market.

On 02/17/2012 01:53 PM, Fredrik Jonson wrote:
> In<jhhp7k$sum$> Rajiv Gupta wrote:
>
>> As for Android. It is in my opinion a fiendishly clever honeypot aiding
>> Google in collecting the identities of as many people in the world as
>> they can.
>
> Cyanogenmod is your friend. Available for many Android devices and wont tell
> Google about your existence if you don't ask it to.
>
Hm. "incognito browsing mode" better than a tinfoil hat?

On 2/17/2012 3:38 PM, Jeff Higgins wrote:
> On 02/17/2012 01:53 PM, Fredrik Jonson wrote:
>> In<jhhp7k$sum$> Rajiv Gupta wrote:
>>
>>> As for Android. It is in my opinion a fiendishly clever honeypot aiding
>>> Google in collecting the identities of as many people in the world as
>>> they can.
>>
>> Cyanogenmod is your friend. Available for many Android devices and
>> wont tell
>> Google about your existence if you don't ask it to.
>>
> Hm. "incognito browsing mode" better than a tinfoil hat?

On 2/17/2012 5:52 AM, Rajiv Gupta wrote:
> On 2012-02-17 13:23:25 +1100, Arne Vajhøj said:
>> On 2/15/2012 9:21 PM, Rajiv Gupta wrote:
>>> On 2012-02-15 23:50:04 +1100, Richard Maher said:
>>>> Is anyone else gutted that the Chrome browser on Android will not
>>>> support JAVA, Flash or any other pluggin?
>>>>
>>>> I thought Google and Android were big on JAVA?
>>>
>>> Android uses the Dalvik VM, ostensibly to take advantage of the CPU
>>> architectures of the devices commonly used in mobile devices. For Google
>>> it also provides a convient firewall to keep out unwanted code from
>>> their eco system.
>>
>> Given that they provide free tools to generate code for Dalvik, then
>> they do not really keep anyone out.
>
> It is still a barrier.

Without any noticeable effect.
>>> Flash is no longer necessary since HTML5.
>>
>> If you can live with 30% of web users not seeing your stuff.
>
> The situation is rapidly changing.

Not really. A large portion of users do not update their
browsers when a new major version come out.
> Adobe have acknowledged it themselves
> as they have stopped developing Flash for mobile devices.

Adobe has acknowledged that Flash on mobile is a dead end.

But there are still a few people left that use PC's to
browse the web.
>>> The same goes for Java Applets. It has been a long time since applets
>>> have been useful. I recommend that people disable Java in their
>>> browsers. It is just a security risk and a way to waste memory.
>>
>> ????
>>
>> On a page that does not use applets, then Java will not be running and
>> therefor not e using memory.
>>
>> On a page that does use applets, then Java will consume memory but also
>> be needed.
>>
>> So I do not understand that advice.
>
> Are you retarded or just a pedant? By disabling Java in the browser, you
> will prevent the browser from running applets.

If you delete the browser you will save even more memory.

There is not much point in saving memory by disabling functionality
that you want.
>>> HTML
>>> canvas and websockets and JS can do anything that you could do in Java
>>> in a browser.
>>
>> For web then Java applets is still more widely supported than HTML5.
>
> For any new developments you would be an imbecile to choose deploying an
> applet.

Imbecile preferring bigger market share? I don't think so!
> The browser that has the most rapidly increasing market share
> (Chrome) does not even bother to support it.

Have you considered investigating these matters a bit?

Applets is supported in Chrome since Java 6u12.
>>> As for Android. It is in my opinion a fiendishly clever honeypot aiding
>>> Google in collecting the identities of as many people in the world as
>>> they can.
>>
>> That problem is solvable:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat
>
> Google's main business is to collect information about people in order
> to profit from it by advertising or selling the information in some
> form. This is not a paranoid delusional statement. In some jurisdictions
> their activities border on criminal. For example, forging emails from
> registered users which state that user "XXX" has invited you to join
> Google+. In fact an official complaint has been made to a member of
> parlaiment in my jurisdiction asking for the federal police to
> investigate these mass forging of emails because forging of emails is an
> offence.

The fact that a person write the parliament and ask them to
investigate something does not make it illegal or immoral.

"Rajiv Gupta" <> wrote in message
news:jhhp7k$sum$...
> On 2012-02-15 23:50:04 +1100, Richard Maher said:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is anyone else gutted that the Chrome browser on Android will not support
>> JAVA, Flash or any other pluggin?
>>
>> I thought Google and Android were big on JAVA?
>>
>> Cheers Richard Maher
>
>
> Flash is no longer necessary since HTML5.

Choice and competition are often good things, as is supporting a client base
that isn't that keen to be on the bleading edge. Leaving video aside, I
still haven't seen a charting tool that can match what can be achieved with
Flex charting.
> Flash is unwanted anyway

Seems pretty popular to me.
> as it
> offers some pernicious features for marketers (and others) to track users
> using Flash cookies.

With iOS giving everyone access to your contacts and address book let alone
what sites like Facebook get up to, I see no reason to highlight Flash
cookies. Also, given that Web-Sockets have been firstly removed from HTML5
then disabled everywhere (except maybe Chrome) due to security flaws, I
believe your smugness to be unjustified.
> I say good riddence to Flash.

With the cartel of Apple, Google, and Microsoft ganging up to destroy it,
there doesn't appear to be any other course of action.
>
> The same goes for Java Applets. It has been a long time since applets
> have been useful.

Bollocks!

While the pixel footprint of modern Applets may be reduced to zero, their
usefulness continues unabated. Nothing else on the planet can provide the
awesome, yet sandboxed, power of an unsigned Java Applet! Multi-tab,
multi-threaded power and functionality only dreamt of by today's
long-polling, Javascript, hacks. (I note you diddn't mention HTML5
"worker-threads"; too embarassing for even you to gloat over?)
> I recommend that people disable Java in their browsers.

I'm sure your blog is just clocking up those clicks as we speak.
> It is just a security risk and a way to waste memory.

Yet I'm willing to wager that in the same breath you're a big jQuery
cargo-cult fan.
> HTML canvas and
> websockets and JS can do anything that you could do in Java in a browser.

Anyone who thinks WebSockets implemented over HTTP can come anywhere close
to providing the full-blown functionality of a native TCP/IP or UDP socket
is either in denial or just plain ignorant.
> Applets are a dying technology and the sooner they kick the bucket the
> better for everyone.

Certainly better for every supplier except Oracle. And all those developers
who like more than one tool in the toolbox.
>
> As for Android. It is in my opinion a fiendishly clever honeypot aiding
> Google in collecting the identities of as many people in the world as they
> can.

On 2/15/2012 6:50 AM, Richard Maher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is anyone else gutted that the Chrome browser on Android will not support
> JAVA, Flash or any other pluggin?
>
> I thought Google and Android were big on JAVA?
>
> Cheers Richard Maher
>
>

I am starting to think that this whole idea of 'running applications
in the cloud' will never work as well as running an application
on the desktop.

If I see the same thing with a choice of an applet or a jar file
that I can download first and run on the PC, I now go for the jar
file choice.

The speed of the internet these days makes downloading things
not an issue any more.

People now think HTML5/Javascript is the next big thing, where
everyone will write their wonderful advanced 20 million lines
applications in HTML5 and Javascript.

May be for simple games and basic app this will work, but
for advanced applications where good and robust performance
is important, running things directly on the desktop/computer
will always be better than running things inside yet another
software application like the browser.

Bottom line, it is not a big deal for me not being able to run Java
inside the browser as long as I can run the same thing on the PC. It
will run better that way.

I guess I used the wrong word. I did not mean to run things on
the server vs. on the desktop/pc.

I meant to run things in a browser vs. on the desktop/pc.

But I thought this was clear even though I used the word
'cloud' when may be I should have used RIA (rich internet applications).
After all, I was talking about applets and HTML5 and Javascript
all the time? These run in the browser, not on the server.
>insofar as I can tell, to avoid annoying support calls
> which end in either "reboot" or "re-install".
>

If the PC is 'bad', then applets/HTML5/javaScript/Flash/
pick_your_Browserplugins/ etc.. will also run bad. After all,
the browser runs on the PC as well.
> The beauty of AJAX, etc, is in terms of support. It's a complex way of
> getting away from Windows, to which people will go to extraordinary
> lengths.
>
> -Thufir

So, You want to run say, photoshop application, on the server using
AJAX so to get away from the PC? Do you think it will work as good
as running it on the PC?

> But I thought this was clear even though I used the word 'cloud' when
> may be I should have used RIA (rich internet applications). After all,
> I was talking about applets and HTML5 and Javascript all the time?
> These run in the browser, not on the server.

Maybe it's semantics, or maybe I have no idea what you're talking about.
Either is equally likely

When you say "run in the browser" does that mean you navigate towww.whatever.something? Pardon, I guess, yeah, the server passes the
processing off to the browser, but the code (or applet) itself resides
server side.

My point was that if you call tech support they'll say "works from here"
and tell you to re-install your OS or something. Whether the processing
is client or server side doesn't seem that much of a big deal(?), unless
you have a slow computer. It virtually eliminates version problems.

I suppose the "next" step will be to cache the js/whatever. Hey, they re-
invented JWS! Anyhow...

Is that what you mean buy RIA? Yes, I'm too lazy to go wikipedia before
posting this.

Share This Page

Welcome to The Coding Forums!

Welcome to the Coding Forums, the place to chat about anything related to programming and coding languages.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to ask questions about coding or chat with the community and help others.
Sign up now!